| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| British sailors tell of intense 'pressure' in Iranian detention |
| 2007-04-06 |
| ROYAL MARINES BASE CHIVENOR, England (AFP) - The 15 British sailors freed by Iran told Friday how they were subjected to intense "psychological pressure" and threatened with prison during their two weeks in captivity. Addressing a press conference a day after the group's return to Britain, Royal Marine Captain Chris Air and naval Lieutenant Felix Carman said they had been isolated from each other, handled roughly and told they faced seven years imprisonment if they failed to confess to being in Iranian waters. They were at times blindfolded and handcuffed when lined up against a wall and their Iranian captors used mind games in a bid to get information and confessions. There was "constant psychological pressure," Carman said as he read out a joint statement on behalf of the eight sailors and seven marines captured in the northern Gulf on March 23 while carrying out anti-smuggling operations. "Fighting back was simply not an option," said Air of their capture. "If we had, some of us would not be here today, of that I am completely sure." Air, 25, was one of the captive servicemen shown on Iraqi television admitting that the group had trespassed into Iranian waters. On Friday, he rescinded that statement, stressing that they were "well inside" Iraqi waters when captured. The only woman in the group, leading seaman Faye Turney, 26, was separated from the men straight away and later told that the others had gone home four days earlier. "She coped admirably" Air said. Turney was not present at the press briefing at the Royal Marine Base Chivenor in Devon, southwest England, where the 15 spent their first night of freedom after being reunited with their families and friends. Carman, 26 said of the interrogation techniques used by their Iranian captors: "The questions were aggressive and the handling a bit rough," he said. Prior to the press briefing, Admiral Sir Jonathon Band had praised the sailors' bravery and dignity during their detention and rejected suggestions that they should not have made "confessions" about breaching Iran's territorial waters. "They weren't on combat operations. They weren't like people shot down in Tornados in the (first) Gulf War," said Band, who as First Sea Lord is head of the Royal Navy. "I don't think there is any doubt from the statements some of them made, and certainly the letters, that they were under a certain element of psychological pressure." Band also said Britain had suspended boarding operations in the Gulf and opened an official inquiry to look at the rules of engagement, intelligence gathering, equipment and procedures to prevent any repeat of the incident. |
| Posted by:tu3031 |
| #38 Zen. We agree |
| Posted by: Frank G 2007-04-06 22:41 |
| #37 In the big picture, Western Civilization in general is displaying a lack of resolve, viz Muslim global aggression to the end of restoration of the Caliphate. With the demise of the Ottoman tyranny in 1927, Muslims were without a successor government to the phony "prophet" for the first time since the year 632. Our alliances with the Saud and Pak terrorist entities, are merely OUR accession to jihad terror by other means. Clausewitz said that diplomacy is only another way of war. We have a pretext to destroy Ayatollah power in Iran. Either we use it or our gradual surrender to the mortal enemy of freedom, will escalate. Both the immigration pollution of the slaves of "allah" into the civilized world, and our facilitation of dar-islam within dar-harb, are suicide pills. |
| Posted by: Sneaze 2007-04-06 21:52 |
| #36 I've no comment about the sailors' behaviour, except that when they called their ship for help, they were told not to fight against their captors. They may well have believed they would be abandoned, especially if they were informed that was the word coming down in real time from London... as earlier reports said it was. Separately, our heartfelt thanks to you and your soldier son, Get your gun. May he never need to act on that ROE, and may he come back to you safe and whole. Our country is blessed to have those like him who are willing to sacrifice to protect it, and parents like you who stand strong in support. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2007-04-06 21:40 |
| #35 For the moment, let's assume that there was some virtue in dislodging France's place in the record books for the "Speed of Surrender" category. What value was there in going beyond Name, Rank, Serial Number and Birth Date so that it assisted Iran's propaganda efforts to such a tremendous degree? If Britain is ludicrous enough to treat these fifteen as returning heros, then they may as well hand over their colours to Iran. This hideous farce is only compounded by America's complicity in exchanging prisoners. Still, Britain's own response, from start to finish, was so totally lacking in valor that this can only indelibly besmirch their military record. As to MacNails' toothsome tidbit, here's a larf for us all: A Nottingham mosque has been severely damaged in a fire described by a leading imam as "an act of terrorism against Muslims". Aren't people's heads supposed to explode when they say crap like this? Which is it, a redundancy or oxymoron to compose a sentence that contains the words, "terrorism against Muslims"? |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-04-06 21:39 |
| #34 JAB: The gist of the stories is that they could have interpreted their ROE to defend themselves but the Captain ordered them not to and did not offer support. I just now learned from this post that they are suspending boarding operations in that area that they are assigned to patrol as part of our coalition. In other words, they no longer have our back. That may not be a bad thing, if all the RN will do is hand over Royal Marines to the Iranian military, for which we must exchange captured Iranian terror masters. Besides, we have more than enough people to do this kind of stuff. It's good PR to have something other than the American flag show up in newscasts about Iraq - it shows that our "alliances" are worth the tens of billions of dollars we pour into them. But the reality is that we have more than enough people to take care of coastal patrols. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2007-04-06 21:08 |
| #33 I can't help but think that phrase, "fighting back was not an option", will live in ignominy. I wonder what the brave British soldiers who fought on Sword and Gold Beaches in Operation Overlord would have thought of it. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2007-04-06 19:36 |
| #32 As the mother of an American Soldier I had "the talk" with my son before he left for the second time overseas. I asked about the possiblity of capture. He responded dead eyed that "you never get captured by a Muslim, better to die on your feet than allow the propaganda they would use against your own country" I am not sure what bothers me more, the ROE by the UK or the smiling chimps(10/15, 5 not) as they looked like they were on a trip to Disney Land. As I am currently watching the Band Of Brothers I am shocked at the difference a few generations (UK) make. Sad that. |
| Posted by: Get your gun 2007-04-06 19:35 |
| #31 The Jack Jacobs video can be found on LGF, here. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2007-04-06 19:26 |
| #30 not having been a POW, I'm sure I'll be criticized, but the Brits SUCKED. Once you're captured, I imagine, you hope for the best but plan for the worst. To me, being torture and killed would, of course, be bad, but to be thought a coward or wimp. By rolling over in days without physical coersion is unthinkable. Isolation? Blindfolding? Nasty words? I withstood worse in my fraternities' hell week...acknowledging I wasn't threatened with death or years' imprisonment, but if I had (like the Brits should've) I wouldn't believe it. Maintain some friggin dignity....yeesh! |
| Posted by: Frank G 2007-04-06 19:19 |
| #29 Can you give us a URL for that Col. Jacobs piece? |
| Posted by: Keystone 2007-04-06 19:14 |
| #28 Something I never do, but this time it's worthwhile. Go to YouTube and find the MSNBC commentary by ret. Col. Jack Jacobs on this affair. Though I haven't watched much TV for years now, I recall Jacobs as one of the most sober, professional, and analytical commentators from the retired ranks. Check out his reaction. He is, in his own words, almost speechless with disgust at the behavior of the British military in this case. No amount of lipstick will change the overall appeal of this porker. Here we have a true, stupendous scandal. The sort that should bring ministerial and senior military firings/resignations, national uproar, etc. Is there any sign of this in the UK? I know it's not the US - where utter non-issues like Katrina response and fired political appointees are deemed scandals - but is the UK capable of being upset any more? |
| Posted by: Verlaine 2007-04-06 19:05 |
| #27 The minute free men decide the Establishment, the goverment, the bloody Royal Navy will not fight back is the day free men will take the law into their own hands. I suspect that if these fifteen hostages had not been returned then we would see more than mosques being burned to the ground. There would be hand-wringing and cries of racism but the facts would remain the facts. |
| Posted by: Excalibur 2007-04-06 18:58 |
| #26 LH, everything you say (in isolation, on its own merits) is logical and sensible. But I don't think it washes in this case. As I said before, we don't have all the factoids, but it seems the ones that are emerging do nothing to pretty this very ugly picture. At a minimum, (1) the ops plan and ROE for the maritime patrol were amateurish or criminally incompetent; (2) the performance of the captives was utterly pathetic. I think the statements by the two servicemembers, and the senior officer, actually unwittingly mock their performance. Sailors and marines serving in a war zone are taken captive illegally by a known enemy state and they succumb to threats of multi-year imprisonment just like that, thinking the UK and Coalition would just let Iran imprison them for 7 years? Come on, dude. I don't think it's flip or mindlessly jingoistic to find both elements of this affair (command performance and servicemember performance) appalling. And I don't exempt the USG or Dubya, in the larger sense, on the situation with Iran, either. |
| Posted by: Verlaine 2007-04-06 18:33 |
| #25 There's at least one person with balls left in Blighty. |
| Posted by: Mac 2007-04-06 18:29 |
| #24 Well I did chuckle when i took the dog for a walk and saw them praying in the road with all the other shit . Seeing as it is an old church , divine intervention or divine inspiration , i'll let you decide. |
| Posted by: MacNails 2007-04-06 18:06 |
| #23 damn shame, macnails...divine intervention? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2007-04-06 18:02 |
| #22 In other news , mosque burnt down 200 yards from my house today |
| Posted by: MacNails 2007-04-06 17:56 |
| #21 "They weren't on combat operations"?! What the fuck were they gonna do if they found a dhow packed to the gunnels with arms/ammo/orcs? Give 'em a ticket? |
| Posted by: mojo 2007-04-06 16:47 |
| #20 We were blindfolded (sometimes). We were handcuffed (sometimes). We were stripped (sometimes). We were isolated (sometimes). We were questioned agressively. We were handled roughly. We were threatened with seven years in prison. We had guns cocked at our heads. We underwent constant psychological pressure. The above information is what I've gleamed from reading the hostages complete statment to the press posted at the Daily Mail and Telegraph. I don't think I missed anything. No reported beatings or use of physical torture. Someone should check the "goodie bags" they brought home from Tehran. Maybe their dignity is inside together with a code of conduct for captured military personnel. |
| Posted by: Mark Z 2007-04-06 16:26 |
| #19 FWIW, here is the Code of Conduct for U.S. military personnel: I. I am an American, fighting in the forces which guard my country and our way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense. II. I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, I will never surrender the members of my command while they still have the means to resist. III. If I am captured I will continue to resist by all means available. I will make every effort to escape and to aid others to escape. I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy. IV. If I become a prisoner of war, I will keep faith with my fellow prisoners. I will give no information or take part in any action which might be harmful to my comrades. If I am senior, I will take command. If not, I will obey the lawful orders of those appointed over me and will back them up in every way. V. When questioned, should I become a prisoner of war, I am required to give name, rank, service number, and date of birth. I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability. I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country and its allies or harmful to their cause. VI. I will never forget that I am an American, fighting for freedom, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my God and in the United States of America. I've no idea what the British equivalent is, if any. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2007-04-06 16:04 |
| #18 Pathetic. Utterly pathetic. Perhaps the British wish to be excused from the remainder of the fight? |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2007-04-06 15:48 |
| #17 I have no problem with these 15 surrendering when they were surrounded and outgunned. There's no honor in committing suicide. But I am stunned by how quickly they all were ready to "confess". Even if they renounce it now, it's too late. They've given Ahmadinnerjacket enough propaganda footage to milk for the rest of his (hopefully short) life. |
| Posted by: Dar 2007-04-06 15:44 |
| #16 name rank and serial number is a limit on the capturing state. That was violated by IRAN, which will probably claim they were spies, not POWs. Feh on Iran. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2007-04-06 15:34 |
| #15 I am not saying they should not have surrendered, but whatever happen to name, rank , serial number and that is it. no smiley faces for the camera, no speeches off letters, just name. rank. serial number. |
| Posted by: djohn66 2007-04-06 15:31 |
| #14 1. Its considered proper to surrender when fighting back is suicidal, and theres nothing of tangible military value worth commmitting suicide to protect. If youre in boats, returing from a boarding, and youre all going to be killed, shooting back just to take one or two with you is not necessary for honor. 2. They were told they would be imprisoned for years if they didnt cooperate, and would be released if they did. The shame for that is on the Iranian regime, not the sailors. 3. For all we know, they are suspending ops so that when the ops restart, they WILL be in a position to shoot back, effectively. Dont count the UK out yet, not by any means. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2007-04-06 15:26 |
| #13 They acted like unarmed bobbies instead of royal marines... Its a bit harsh but the iranian "yoots" have grown up around a lot more firearms than the Brits. |
| Posted by: Capsu78 2007-04-06 14:43 |
| #12 The good news is that the Iranians learned from our mistakes at Abu Grabi: not one report of panties being used as a torture device..... So they CAN be taught, in little baby steps... |
| Posted by: USN, Ret. 2007-04-06 14:14 |
| #11 My read on this is they will be back after they retool the ROEs to something more connected to reality. |
| Posted by: gorb 2007-04-06 14:00 |
| #10 The gist of the stories is that they could have interpreted their ROE to defend themselves but the Captain ordered them not to and did not offer support. I just now learned from this post that they are suspending boarding operations in that area that they are assigned to patrol as part of our coalition. In other words, they no longer have our back. The sun has set on the Royal Navy, a force that defended freedom in the British Isles for centuries and helped end slavery in the West. This is a very sad day in world history. Shame on them. Nelson is spinning in his grave. |
| Posted by: JAB 2007-04-06 13:55 |
| #9 Translation: They had guns and might have hurt some of us! So we decided to give up so we wouldn't get hurt. Then they were mean to us and scared us with maybe going to jail and being called bad names, so we said what they wanted on television so we could go home. We got presents and the mean man in charge smiled at us and gave us pretty suits to wear home. When we got home we got to put on our nice uniforms again and march around and act brave again. And the prime Minister said he was very proud of us for not getting hurt or hurting anyone. Now our government has decided our national policy will be not to do this anymore so nobody else might get hurt or have to be scared. Also we can park our boats so they won't get used and can look nice and cost less next year. Captain Air, Royal Marines, Lieutenant Carmen, Royal Navy |
| Posted by: Just AboutEnough 2007-04-06 13:44 |
| #8 I was wondering when Amnesty Inter-communists is going to condemn the treatment and ILLEGAL detention of the British citizens. (Crickets) Thought so. Also I want to add my condemnation on the British troops. After they had their initial "News" confernce and it was clear tehy were not being beaten or starved they should ahve ceased cooperation with the Iraniacs. They didn't have to fight them outright they could have simply NOT COOPERATED. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2007-04-06 13:39 |
| #7 So far, all the additional info we're getting about the whole affair (initial incident and behavior while captive) only reinforces the view that this was a shameful, disastrous, incompetent chapter. Perhaps the inquiry will change that. But the defensive tone of the briefer, and his pathetically unimpressive assertions, don't give much hope of a better picture emerging. And I'm leaving aside anything the US might have done to secure their release (if we did anything). The Iranian govt. has been killing Coalition soldiers for years in Iraq, and when directly provoked, THIS is the response? Very, very hard to believe we're doing anything substantial on the covert/quiet side to the Iranians given their recklessly confident behavior in this instance. |
| Posted by: Verlaine 2007-04-06 13:33 |
| #6 Fighting back was simply not an option," said Air of their capture. "If we had, some of us would not be here today, of that I am completely sure." INHERERT RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE! There would have some Iranians there "would not be here today" if they had tried this shit on my Marines. I'm sure these Brits had weapons, and not one fired a single shot. Somebody please tell me that they have ROEs that do not give them the right to self defense. If they do have that right, shame on them for not exercising it. Not only have they disgraced their Nation, but they have allowed the Iranians a giant PR victory. Sometimes it is better to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission. |
| Posted by: 0369_Grunt 2007-04-06 13:31 |
| #5 Hopefully we see some US ships taking up the patrol. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2007-04-06 12:55 |
| #4 O how the mighty have fallen. No torture, no beatings, no food or sleep deprivation, no heat or cold. You'd think Royal Marines could have handled a week or two of psychological pressure. |
| Posted by: Keystone 2007-04-06 12:25 |
| #3 Caving into Allan. Well at least they are home. |
| Posted by: Icerigger 2007-04-06 12:16 |
| #2 "Britain had suspended boarding operations in the Gulf" To me, this was a main goal all along. The Enemy (IRAN) now can make waterborne weapon/soldier shipments into Iraq unheeded. With the Basra area clear of nosy Limeys and adding the ability to offload offshore any anything they need, i.e. the smugglers get breathing space. |
| Posted by: SCpatriot@work 2007-04-06 12:08 |
| #1 Band also said Britain had suspended boarding operations in the Gulf Um, wouldn't that be rewarding bad behavior? Stop crying , mamoud, and I will give you some ice cream. |
| Posted by: Capsu78 2007-04-06 12:01 |